DeLeon v. Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center, et al.

(34)

Tentative Ruling

Re: DeLeon v. Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center, et al. Superior Court Case No. 24CECG00946

Hearing Date: June 17, 2026 (Dept. 501)

Motion: by Defendant Raul Calderon, M.D. for Summary Judgment

If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Wednesday, June 24, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 501.

Tentative Ruling:

To grant defendant Raul Calderon, M.D.’s motion for summary judgment as to the entire complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c.) Defendant shall submit a judgment consistent with the terms of this order within 10 days of service of the order.

Explanation:

As the moving party, Defendant bears the initial burden of proof to show that plaintiff cannot establish one or more elements of her cause of action or to show that there is a complete defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Only after the moving party has carried this burden of proof does the burden of proof shift to the other party to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists – and this must be shown via specific facts and not mere allegations. (Id.)

Where the moving party produces competent expert opinion declarations showing that there is no triable issue of fact on an essential element of the opposing party’s claim (e.g. that a medical defendant’s treatment fell within the applicable standard of care), the opposing party’s burden is to produce competent expert opinion declarations to the contrary. (Ochoa v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1480, 1487.)

In determining whether any triable issues of material fact exist, the court must strictly construe the moving papers and liberally construe the declarations of the party opposing summary judgment. Any doubts as to whether a triable issue of material fact exist are to be resolved in favor of the party opposing summary judgment. (Barber v. Marina Sailing, Inc. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 558, 562.)

Lastly, “[f]ailure to file opposition including a separate statement of disputed material facts by not less than [20] days prior to the motion ‘may constitute a sufficient ground, in the court's discretion, for granting the motion.’” (Cravens v. State Bd. of Education (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 253, 257, quoting Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(c).)

In the case at bench, Defendant Raul Calderon, M.D. relies on the declaration of Mark Zakowski, M.D., a board certified anesthesiologist with extensive experience. Dr. Zakowski relied upon the plaintiff’s medical records to opine that Dr. Calderon’s placement of decedent’s epidural and administration of medications complied with the standard of care. (Zakowski Decl., ¶ 5; UMF No. 10.) Dr. Zakowski further opines that no act or omission of Dr. Calderon caused or contributed to decedent’s death. (Zakowski Decl., ¶ 6; UMF No. 23.) Dr. Zakowski’s declaration is sufficient to shift the burden as to the existence of a triable issue fact to the plaintiff.

Plaintiff does not oppose Dr. Calderon’s motion.

Therefore, the motion for summary judgment is granted.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: KCK on 06/15/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

19